You Only Think the Presence of Bomb Dogs in Boston is “Evidence” of a Conspiracy Because You Don’t Know Shit about Bomb Dogs

[Today’s TOL post is brought to you by a guest author who wishes to remain anonymous due to some privileged information divulged here. The Editor-in-Chief has verified her identity and expertise in this matter.]

I’ll get right to the point: there is no Boston Marathon conspiracy. This is not a false flag; this is terrorism. Whether it’s domestic or foreign, we don’t authoritatively know yet. I would like to address one aspect of the “conspiracy” directly: the controversy surrounding the bomb dogs present at the marathon. I have worked with bomb dogs in a civilian care capacity for a couple of years, and am familiar with how, when, and how often these dogs are trained.

1. Isn’t it suspicious that there were bomb dogs at the event for “training?” Do you really expect me to believe that’s a coincidence?

It’s neither suspicious nor coincidence. Bomb dogs have a very rigorous training standard, which includes hours of active searching and testing regularly to retain certification. Like any other police activity, training is best done in varied situations and stress levels. Dogs are handled in controlled environments as well as public events to assess the dog’s ability to work in a variety of situations.

It’s a “two birds, one stone,” situation – the dogs get valuable training in a large crowd, and the event gets bomb sweeping. It is NOT uncommon for bomb dogs to be at marathons. The dog I worked with had been trained and serviced at more than one. Chances are, any large event you’ve gone topost-9/11has had a bomb dog training at it.

2. Why didn’t the dogs detect the bomb then? Isn’t it suspicious the dogs weren’t in the blast area?

Current intelligence suggests that the bomber was mobile. Bomb dogs are a scarce resource – you’re talking about a massive area to cover for a marathon and very few dogs trained in bomb detection. Literally thousands of areas to scan. The dogs very likely were taken through the finish line area…hours before the explosion. We don’t know how long the bombs were placed before detonation – the window for them to have been discovered could have been minutes.

Keep in mind dogs have to rest just like people, especially search dogs. Try to do “Eye Spy” books for hours on end—eventually your eyes will fatigue from trying to find a red marble. Their noses can get “tired” the same way, so there’s nothing suspicious about there not being bomb dogs in an area that had already been searched.

3. There are reports that the police were on megaphones telling the crowd that the dogs were just there for a drill. That seems like a lot of presence for a “drill” to me.

You have to understand, a lot of people fear police, a lot of people fear dogs, nearly everyone is afraid of police dogs. It’s awfully hard to train and sweep in a crowd of people freaking out.

Panic, especially in a crowd, is a dangerous situation, and it only takes one person to start a chain reaction. Panic, stampeding, trampling, can be just as lethal as a bomb blast. In The Station nightclub fire in 2003, a huge number of people perished in the doorway out of the club, piled on top of one another, trying to escape. Others still were trampled to death inside the club. The number one concern of the Boston police during the marathon would have been preventing panic and a stampede-related tragedy.

4. Well wouldn’t a guy with multiple backpacks have been suspicious? How did law enforcement not notice something like that, and have the dogs sniff him out?

Actually, at a marathon that’s pretty common. Outside the first wave of professional runners, a lot of people marathon with friends. Marathoners are generally pretty social with their running, it’s totally normal for a group of friends to run together…and have one friend or spouse at the end with all of their bags. Seeing a spectator at the finish line with two, three, four backpacks full of stuff wouldn’t have been totally out of place. There were hundreds of medium to large bags dropped by fleeing spectators. We don’t know who the bomber was yet. For all we know he or she too was cheering or had sports bags—just like many other people in the crowd. The bomber would have blended in 100%. Expecting nefarious people to be outwardly obvious is unreasonable.

Again, law enforcement had no knowledge of a threat prior to the explosions, so having each person who came and went with bags searched would not have, at the time, seemed like a wise use of resources.

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions about bomb dogs and the events in Boston. We need to keep our thoughts with the community and with our families, life is fragile.

In an unrelated but important note, if you’re considering donating blood, please wait 2-4 weeks from now. Blood has a limited shelf life and the hospitals in Boston have already met their blood needs. Because blood donation can only be done every 56 days, if everyone donates now there will be a window of shortages in the coming weeks when the blood begins to expire and donors are not yet eligible to donate again.

About the author

Um, what? It’s not a coincidence that there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the location where the bombs went off? That would imply there’s a connection, and the conspiracy theorists are right.

You need to edit your articles more thoroughly…

http://thoughtsonliberty.com/ Gina Luttrell

The question was that it was a coincidence that bomb dogs were at the event, which our guest author shows that it is not.

I have yet to see a report that there were bomb dogs EXACTLY where the bombs went off.

http://www.facebook.com/matty.lee Matthew Myers

It’s not suspicious: Bomb sniffing dogs are often at events like this.
It’s not coincidence: Bomb sniffing dogs attend events like this for specific reasons.

You need to read the articles more thoroughly before commenting.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1003618243 Mitchell McAleer

i see zero information that justifies the deception employed to hide the name of the author. Nothing in the article has any remotely sensitive information about bomb dog handling or police proceedures, so why the deception? Maybe it’s because an obvious apology for the failure of the security apparatus to prevent terrorism, needs some distraction, while the public is prepared to sacrifice more liberty for more failed security apparatus,. that confiscates our shampoo and applesauce at the airport,. and has NEVER apprehended a single terrorist. Now what can we look forward to? more bloated bureaucracies that fail as miserably as the TSA? more blue nitrile gloved hands brushing my balls and failing to prevent terrorism?

http://thoughtsonliberty.com/ Gina Luttrell

The writer requested to remain anonymous, and so we followed basic journalistic integrity to respect that wish. Because the source was anonymous, we made sure to back up their claims with external citations to provide extra credibility. It is not, in any way, deception. Nor is it an apology. It’s just fact.

It is as of yet unclear what the aftermath of this tragedy will be. Let’s not create phantoms where they are not. I’m sure we’ll have real enough problems in the next few months without freaking ourselves out unduly.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1003618243 Mitchell McAleer

While it may be unclear to you what the aftermath of the tragedy will become, and if history is any teacher, the fact that Dianne Feinstein had the new updated assault weapons ban reinstatement bill ready to go when the Sandy Hook shooting happened, I have a pretty decent clue how it’s going to go after Boston. The people in Boston cheering military patrols and house to house raids in Boston give you any kind of idea of what’s in store? The posse comitatus act prevents the military from operating as civilian police for a reason, police are supposed to be different from trained killers.

Paceride

Really, you can produce photos of people cheering military patrols. Going house to house is a raid? Interesting mind you have there.

http://www.facebook.com/brendan.morse Brendan Morse

Why is this post necessary? Conspiracy theories on this subject are not abound and I haven’t even heard of any yet. You are, in a real sense, propagating and legitimizing the conspiracy theories by posting this unnecessarily

Actually, prominent conspiracy theorists have already been decrying the Boston Marathon bombings as a false flag. Please see infowars.com and search Twitter for #falseflag.

It started almost immediately after the bombings became news and hasn’t stopped since. facebook.com/theskepticallibertarian also has a good coverage of the various conspiracy theories that have come out. In additon, our writer here was responding to things that s/he heard and read.

Conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever “abound” in the typical sense. They are usually propagated by a small portion of the population. However, they are hardly absent here. Please be sure to check your assertions before accusing this publication of misdeeds.

http://www.facebook.com/brendan.morse Brendan Morse

Prominent conspiracy theorists talking about it actually aids what I am saying. The same people that always create or believe in conspiracy theories are talking about them and these people are not worth talking about. These prominent conspiracy theorists have almost no credibility among the wider public. This article is calling into question the credibility of those that never had credibility in the first place. I wouldn’t question the post if there were a lot (or even a few serious) people talking about it.

Also, talking to conspiracy theorists is also pointless because if they believe in stupid conspiracies they will not be convinced anyways…if they believe that the bombing in Boston is a conspiracy, then they would certainly believe your anonymous source is a conspirator’s plant.

http://www.facebook.com/atiqzabinski Atiq Zabinski

I had been wondering how dogs failed to find the bombs when the finish line would be the most obvious place to put them. Thanks for clarifying.

About Us

We are a team of ladies writing about freedom. We want to make it clear why everyone, but especially women, should appreciate what liberty does for them. We are also writing to the liberty movement, because sometimes our voices get lost in the crowd.

Writers here might agree on occasion. Other times they will debate. They will sometimes write about women. Sometimes they won’t. That is the nature of individualism; everyone has a story to tell, and we are here to let women tell theirs.